Looking For the Real Jesus (as always)

WE WERE DISCUSSING hagiography (see below), a fancy word for history written with a bias, because we don't want hagiography, we want to avoid it, and we need to be able to identify it when we see it, so we can toss it. We see it often, if we read much history; alas, it is regrettably common, what with all the bias in the world. What we want is fair, honest, balanced, fact based history, without bias or distortion, a goal for which it is worth working hard. We want the truth, because, well, it sets you free. A recent book by Bart Ehrman, entitled "Jesus Before the Gospels", is confronted with the fact that none of the fab four says much of anything about the life of Jesus before his thirtieth birthday, and the fact that all four gospels were written at least forty to sixty five years after the cruxifiction, and the book asks: what is the truth about the true Jesus, and how effectively was this truth transmitted for forty years or more, by word of mouth? Some of the most important questions in modern times. Nobody who actually knew Joshua ben Joseph ever wrote anything down about the man. All four gospels are at least second hand, or third or worse, and after the second, it generally gets bad for accurate history. Fifty years is a long time, and, almost every time, history without primary source, eye witness documentation turns out very inaccurately. This has been proven, repeatedly. Remember that game where people sitting in a circle whisper a few words to each other one at a time, the words go around the circle, and the story comes back to the first person, unrecognizeable? And, if anybody was ever biased, it was the authors of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those authors positively adored their subject from the git go; and no, that isn't good. It never is. History should be written by people who are neutral, hungry for answers, and willing to accept the truth, whatever it is. Christian history, for the most part, should not be written by Christians. Sorry, my fellow believers, but its true. So, do the four gospels know what they're talking about? The fact is, nobody knows for sure, and thus the Christian believer must, of necessity, take it all on faith, and historians must most certainly not, under any circumstances, take anything on faith. Faith destroys good history. This book is a great project, on the surface, but I know nothing about the author, and this book. I will soon enough, but before I do, I want to remind myself that hagiography sucks, and that if this Bart Ehrman is a devout Christian, he already has a strike against him. We don't want somebody trying to prove Jesus who has has already proven Jesus in his or her own mind. So, we'll see.